Snow_Miser Posted September 26, 2012 Author Share Posted September 26, 2012 They r no where near the same. Instead of ignoring the obvious. Run SD correlations of extent, area, and volume the last 30 years. There will be none. On top of that there is far less of an anomolous pattern. With addition to the ice is super thin. 10-30Meters, its staying power and albedo capabilities are very limited and weak. We do not have as adequate of sea ice thickness data as we have in the Arctic, so we don't know what the thickness of the ice is in the Antarctic. Certainly the anomalies to the sea ice extent for the Arctic and Antarctic seem to inversely correlate well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 We have plenty of sea ice thickness data on it. so your claim is not true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow_Miser Posted September 26, 2012 Author Share Posted September 26, 2012 We have plenty of sea ice thickness data on it. so your claim is not true. Read my post again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryM Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 We do not have as adequate of sea ice thickness data as we have in the Arctic, so we don't know what the thickness of the ice is in the Antarctic. Certainly the anomalies to the sea ice extent for the Arctic and Antarctic seem to inversely correlate well. 1993 and 2003 were the two "extremes" in Antarctic sea ice. Where is the inverse correlation you speak of? Terry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow_Miser Posted September 26, 2012 Author Share Posted September 26, 2012 1993 and 2003 were the two "extremes" in Antarctic sea ice. Where is the inverse correlation you speak of? Terry Read my post 6 posts up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 Antarctic sea ice growth = 1% per decade over the past 30 years. Arctic sea ice loss = 15% per decade over the same period. One offsetting the other? I think not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turtlehurricane Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 1993 and 2003 were the two "extremes" in Antarctic sea ice. Where is the inverse correlation you speak of? Terry I don't think this effect is detectable on a year to year basis, it operates on much longer time scales, at least decades but probably centuries to thousands of years. The effect that 1 year has is blurred out as it mixes with North Atlantic Deep Water from many other years and slowly pushes towards Antarctica. We know that the Atlantic Meridonal Overturning circulation is a big deal in the oceanic heat budget, yet we barely understand or talk about how changes in it change heat distributions across the globe. It makes sense that it would have a significant impact like this and to the first order the theory is there, but the lack of data has kept it from being developed into a prognostic for climate change despite many studies. This doesn't disprove AGW in any way either, AGW will continue to occur as a long term trend while oscillations like this occur at the same time. We don't know which one will win out yet, but I get the sense that Arctic/Antarctic cooling/warming can happen drastically as we've seen... maybe AGW will trigger the next Arctic cold phase sooner, though not in our lifetimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryM Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 Read my post 6 posts up. I don't see either date mentioned. Don't bother to reply as I really could care less about the minute changes happening in Antarctica. There is some neural response that makes me want to jump in when I read things that are patently absurd, but I am going to shut down that response and by not reading this thread again, I shouldn't again be tempted. - at least regarding the Antarctic. Terry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow_Miser Posted September 26, 2012 Author Share Posted September 26, 2012 Antarctic sea ice growth = 1% per decade over the past 30 years. Arctic sea ice loss = 15% per decade over the same period. One offsetting the other? I think not. The rate of Arctic Sea Ice loss is largely dependent on what month you are looking at... in the winter months the trend downward is significantly less than 15%. I am not saying that one is offsetting the other, but there may be a significant factor creating a decline in the Arctic and an increase in the Antarctic Sea Ice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow_Miser Posted September 26, 2012 Author Share Posted September 26, 2012 I don't see either date mentioned. Don't bother to reply as I really could care less about the minute changes happening in Antarctica. There is some neural response that makes me want to jump in when I read things that are patently absurd, but I am going to shut down that response and by not reading this thread again, I shouldn't again be tempted. - at least regarding the Antarctic. Terry I am not claiming that every single jump and dip on a yearly basis is reflected in the Sea Ice records, as turtle mentioned, the mechanism that is being proposed operates on a multidecadal scale, as then we can separate the noise of natural variability from multidecadal trends in the climatic parameters such as Sea Ice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 We have sea ice thickness data from amsre, ssmis, ssmi, quickscat, envisat, ice-sat, and probably cryosat2 by now. Not to mention the same buoy program-mes the arctic has, submarine data, ships expedition just like the arctic to confirm the satellites. but spread disinformation if you wish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 The rate of Arctic Sea Ice loss is largely dependent on what month you are looking at... in the winter months the trend downward is significantly less than 15%. I am not saying that one is offsetting the other, but there may be a significant factor creating a decline in the Arctic and an increase in the Antarctic Sea Ice. This is why a month or so from the Sea Ice minimum your predictions busted by 1.4-1.6 mil km2. I am not going at you personally, but you need to see this for what it is and not waste your precious time and energy looking for ghosts not there. Your desperately trying to discount AGW and come to some mythical fantasy to explain away the arctic sea ice situation. Why do you do this? Science isn't faith or a blind belief. We already have extremely plausible answers for the Antarctic and nearly 100% proof of the arctic demise, the only quetions left there is how much is attributed to what, but the factors are understood. there is a significant factor causing the dramatic decline in arctic sea ice and small rise in southern ocean sea ice, it's called they are EXTREMELY DIFFERENT CLIMATE SYSTEMS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow_Miser Posted September 26, 2012 Author Share Posted September 26, 2012 We had a 100 K+ gain in Sea Ice yesterday in the Antarctic according to Cryosphere Today. We still have a chance at breaking the all time 2007 record high. It is only 110 K above 2012 right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow_Miser Posted September 26, 2012 Author Share Posted September 26, 2012 This is why a month or so from the Sea Ice minimum your predictions busted by 1.4-1.6 mil km2. I am not going at you personally, but you need to see this for what it is and not waste your precious time and energy looking for ghosts not there. Your desperately trying to discount AGW and come to some mythical fantasy to explain away the arctic sea ice situation. Why do you do this? Science isn't faith or a blind belief. We already have extremely plausible answers for the Antarctic and nearly 100% proof of the arctic demise, the only quetions left there is how much is attributed to what, but the factors are understood. there is a significant factor causing the dramatic decline in arctic sea ice and small rise in southern ocean sea ice, it's called they are EXTREMELY DIFFERENT CLIMATE SYSTEMS. Yes, I was incorrect with my Arctic Sea Ice Extent forecast. This is an Antarctic Sea Ice Thread. I have never denied that regional climate change is playing a role in the Arctic Sea Ice decline. You, on the other hand refuse to accept the possibility that there could be a link between the two poles, even though a correlation is quite evident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 And you haven't posted the proof of unreliable sea ice thickness data. there is no correlation. It's an artifact of the numbers. If there is a causation beyond being apart of the same planet getting the same sun(which they do not get because of orbit) we have no idea of it. Maybe some special lava flows inside the Earth's crust from pole to pole and it's under the arctic. Maybe mermaids migrate from pole to pole and now they are in the North Pole and their technology which is cloaked is warming the ocean. I know I am not being serious but neither are you about much of this. The arctic is a victim of positive feedback. The antarctic is probably a victim of positive feedback just not in the same manner. Positive feedback can also become negative feedback pending what it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turtlehurricane Posted September 27, 2012 Share Posted September 27, 2012 And you haven't posted the proof of unreliable sea ice thickness data. there is no correlation. It's an artifact of the numbers. If there is a causation beyond being apart of the same planet getting the same sun(which they do not get because of orbit) we have no idea of it. Maybe some special lava flows inside the Earth's crust from pole to pole and it's under the arctic. Maybe mermaids migrate from pole to pole and now they are in the North Pole and their technology which is cloaked is warming the ocean. I know I am not being serious but neither are you about much of this. The arctic is a victim of positive feedback. The antarctic is probably a victim of positive feedback just not in the same manner. Positive feedback can also become negative feedback pending what it is. Please read my previous post which explained the correlation between polar climates via the Atlantic Meridional Overturning circulation: Instead of trying to pretend Antarctic sea ice isn't increasing in recent decades, which is just as bad as people who say Arctic sea ice isn't decreasing, perhaps we should discuss the possibility that the two are related. Historical records show that there's a climate see-saw between the Arctic and Antarctic, when the Arctic warms the Antarctic cools and vice versa. It is hypothesized that this relation occurs via the thermohaline circulation. Increased melting of glaciers in the Arctic leads to more freshwater and less deepwater formation, slowing the overall thermohaline circulation and therefore slowing the rate at which heat is transported away from Antarctica in the Atlantic meridonal overturning circulation. Heat would start accumulating in the Antarctic while the Arctic would get very cold due to lack of deepwater formation. Decreased melting of glaciers in the Arctic leads to more deepwater formation and increases the rate at which heat is transported away from Antarctica, so Antarctica cools and the Arctic warms. Since the thermohaline circulations lags by hundreds to thousands of years behind the atmosphere, perhaps we're seeing the response to increased deepwater formation in the Arctic many years ago. Makes sense since the Arctic is warming and the Antarctic is cooling (referring to oceanic areas, the inland ice sheets don't matter for this) at the moment... eventually that very same warming in the Arctic will flip things again. Deepwater formation has decreased significantly in recent years so that will make the Arctic colder eventually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alpha5 Posted September 29, 2012 Share Posted September 29, 2012 Antarctic just missed out on a record high. 2007 hit 16.232 sq km on day 263 2012 hit 16.221 sq km on day 268 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted September 29, 2012 Share Posted September 29, 2012 Antarctic just missed out on a record high. 2007 hit 16.232 sq km on day 263 2012 hit 16.221 sq km on day 268 I would think that given the measurement uncertainty you can say that the 2012 max tied the 2007 max. The 11 K km2 difference is only 0.06% (6 hundredths of 1 percent) which is WAY less than the accuaracy of the sensors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iluvsnow Posted September 30, 2012 Share Posted September 30, 2012 According to NOAA data, all time Antarctic sea ice extent record was set on Sept 22nd, 2012 http://wp.me/p7y4l-iE3 via @wattsupwiththat Wow! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PottercountyWXobserver Posted September 30, 2012 Share Posted September 30, 2012 According to NOAA data, all time Antarctic sea ice extent record was set on Sept 22nd, 2012 http://wp.me/p7y4l-iE3 via @wattsupwiththat Wow! You guys make it seem like this means something? As if this somehow refutes AGW lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow_Miser Posted September 30, 2012 Author Share Posted September 30, 2012 You guys make it seem like this means something? As if this somehow refutes AGW lol No, that's a false assumption that you drew with ZERO evidence to back it up. No one is claiming that Antarctic Ice being at a record high disproves AGW. Quote anyone in this thread that specifically said that. Are people allowed to talk about the Antarctic Sea Ice without being called an AGW denier? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PottercountyWXobserver Posted September 30, 2012 Share Posted September 30, 2012 No, that's a false assumption that you drew with ZERO evidence to back it up. No one is claiming that Antarctic Ice being at a record high disproves AGW. Quote anyone in this thread that specifically said that. Are people allowed to talk about the Antarctic Sea Ice without being called an AGW denier? I haven't found it directly, but it sure is implied. Alot of people pride the topic around like it is a needle waiting to pop the AGW bubble. I mean who quotes Wattsupwiththat if they didn't have intentions of being a denier, I mean that is going to put a bullseye on your back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turtlehurricane Posted September 30, 2012 Share Posted September 30, 2012 You guys make it seem like this means something? As if this somehow refutes AGW lol It means alot, a large region of our planet has been experiencing sea ice increase despite AGW, so there's some sort of underlying process occurring. It is very important to understand that process to be able to forecast future changes in Antarctic sea ice, which significantly effects global shipping and fisheries. AGW is obviously occurring due to greenhouse emissions, I don't recall anyone saying this disproves AGW in the thread recently. The climate is more complex than just AGW though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted September 30, 2012 Share Posted September 30, 2012 You guys make it seem like this means something? As if this somehow refutes AGW lol I haven't found it directly, but it sure is implied. Alot of people pride the topic around like it is a needle waiting to pop the AGW bubble. I mean who quotes Wattsupwiththat if they didn't have intentions of being a denier, I mean that is going to put a bullseye on your back. I think your mis-perceiving a distraction rather than a implied denial of AGW. I think if people thought this was that big of a deal there would be more analysis on the subject. And the folks who know the facts of it know the albedo effect is highly diminished because 70% of the ice sheet is under .50-.75M, there was a time when going into the melt season 75% of the arctic ice sheet was 2.5-3.0 meters and 30% was 4M+, which is why losing that kind of pure reflective heat dispersing rock was important and why the outcome has been never before seen warming that has showed no signs of slowing and might be effecting global temps since we have no nino and near record amsu channel 5 temps and and a torching arctic. The NCEP/NCAR Reanalysis has been called into question in this forum as valid now so we don't have any active data to use for the Antarctic in this forum which is also pretty warm on it's data set, but we do know based on channel 5 and 6 that the Earth is nearing record warmth at the surface because channel 6 is not as warm vs other years as channel 5. basically the warming is coming from the surface. Outside of the arctic and NH hot spots no one place sticks out, the oceans are generally warming all around. Obviously at some point the "general warmth" will push up and not go back down to previous levels of neutral enso conditions. With the solar min over for a couple years now, even with a weaker solar max we may be seeing the next push of record warmth, it remains to be seen, this could be a blip in the "cooling' trend. But in the the next 12-24 months I'd hedge my bets with record warmth. If we had a real NINO break out we would likely see 2012 look like 2010 on AMSU going forward the next however many months the nino lasted. Outside the large area of southern ice. many places of the Southern Ocean are warming. Take note that on the channel 5 data there is some signs of an early October stair-step a flat-line during the time the arctic sea ice has a more rapid recovery since 2007. It's just a note and has no validity, 2012 might have this, but earlier because there is less ice and the satellites will note a temp differential between the open water and where ice would be. 2007 also had one in late September, who knows. But these are exciting times of change we can't help now but watch and learn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vergent Posted September 30, 2012 Share Posted September 30, 2012 It means alot, a large region of our planet has been experiencing sea ice increase despite AGW, so there's some sort of underlying process occurring. It is very important to understand that process to be able to forecast future changes in Antarctic sea ice, which significantly effects global shipping and fisheries. AGW is obviously occurring due to greenhouse emissions, I don't recall anyone saying this disproves AGW in the thread recently. The climate is more complex than just AGW though. What a brilliant observation. Must have taken hours of research. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonger Posted September 30, 2012 Share Posted September 30, 2012 I always wonder why anyone still talks about the "Northwest Passages" being a advantage to shippers, it seems the Panama canal is a more direct route anyhow. This was probably a desired route before the canal was built. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted September 30, 2012 Share Posted September 30, 2012 I always wonder why anyone still talks about the "Northwest Passages" being a advantage to shippers, it seems the Panama canal is a more direct route anyhow. This was probably a desired route before the canal was built. that map is deceiving. The Earth is a Sphere so lines of latitude and longitude are not equal. I was deceived by this before as well. Sailing from Korea to the Netherlands via the Northeast Passage could shave 3,500 miles (5,500 km) and 10 days off the traditional 12,500-mile (20,000 km) route via the Suez Canal. Other routes could offer even bigger time savings. For Beluga, quicker trips and reduced fuel costs has saved the firm some $300,000 per ship. The company plans to sail even bigger ships through the passage next summer and expects to save about $600,000 on those voyages. Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1924410,00.html#ixzz27xyXdUOL Both the NWP and NEP are much shorter than most traditional routes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted September 30, 2012 Share Posted September 30, 2012 It means alot, a large region of our planet has been experiencing sea ice increase despite in part due to AGW, so there's some sort of underlying process occurring. It is very important to understand that process to be able to forecast future changes in Antarctic sea ice, which significantly effects global shipping and fisheries. AGW is obviously occurring due to greenhouse emissions, I don't recall anyone saying this disproves AGW in the thread recently. The climate is more complex than just AGW though. I hope you'll forgive me for correcting your typo. As I'm sure you'll recall, climatologists predicted years ago that antarctic sea ice would slowly increase due to the anthropogenic ozone hole and also to AGW driven water vapor increases leading to more precipitation with resulting freshening of the surface waters. As the ozone hole heals and as global surface temps continue to rise the trend of increasing antarctic sea ice is predicted to reverse. So the melt and refreeze seasons we've observed are completely in line with mainstream AGW. And as with the arctic, natural variability plays a role in the antarctic annual cycle so this years tie with the 2007 maximum area may not mean anything long-term. On the other hand, if the antarctic region was significantly cooling we would expect to see a trend in the annual minimum SIA that would mirror the maximum SIA trend. Cooler ocean results in less melting, right? But the antarctic SIA minimums have been stable over the instrumental period. Which means that we are seeing annual increases in SIA melting as the greater maximum areas melt out to the same minimums. That increase in annual melting means that a lot of additional energy is entering the antarctic region. Where is that extra energy coming from? AGW would explain it by increasing GHGs, including CO2 and water vapor, are causing a milder example of the same polar amplification we're seeing in the arctic. If you don't feel AGW is contributing to the increased antarctic sea ice melting - then please share with us what you dobelieve is causing the observed increase. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted September 30, 2012 Share Posted September 30, 2012 What a brilliant observation. Must have taken hours of research. Hard work and hours of research is exactly what Antarctica deserves and gets. but to quell any further concerns here for the boats traversing the shipping lanes or the fisheries at sea that are being impeded by the bloated ice sheet down South They will probably be able to find open waters to fish and navigate around with these concentrations. A different poster who said there wasn't any reliable sea ice thickness data within the antarctic sea ice sheet. Well with data from 83 voyages by the Aussies. Apparently they take there knowledge of Antarctica very serious, compiled data from 83 cruises around the ice sheet over a 26 year period. Gave us another sea ice thickness map outside of the satellite data. We can see that boats for the most part could wiggle around it or plow through it since most of it is similar thickness to arctic sea ice on it's death bed in late July. http://aspect.antarctica.gov.au/data Antarctic sea ice thickness is a difficult parameter to measure over large areas because there is still no satellite instrument that accurately measures it. This paper reports on a compilation of ship-based observations of sea ice (and snow cover) thickness, collected on 83 Antarctic voyages between 1980 and 2005. The data have been compiled to give this circumpolar map of the mean annual sea ice thickness around Antarctica. They have also been analysed to give statistics on regional and seasonal changes. This is the first published climatology of Antarctic sea ice and snow cover thickness for the Antarctic is valuable for: developing and checking climate models, and for long-term assessment of changes in sea ice cover around Antarctica. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted September 30, 2012 Share Posted September 30, 2012 One more thing and anyone correct me if I am wrong. But I believe 1 milion kilometers of sea ice area at 0.25M thick = 250km3. So Antarctic during it's max this year gained 250km3 or so, which is record or near record. The arctic since 1979 during it's min has lost 13,700km3 or roughly 55 times more in volume than Antarctica has gained at it's peak of gaining ice? If I am wrong please correct my math for such a bold statement. If that is the case how can anyone say there is some global phenomenon connecting them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.